CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 23 janvier 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s319372BC { width:122.43pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sD444500 { height:36.4pt } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s3A366575 { height:37.15pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 51098/22 Radojka GARDAŠEVIĆ against Montenegro (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 23   January 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Erik Wennerström , President,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Alain Chablais , judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 19   October 2022, Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr M. Vojinović, a lawyer practising in Nikšić. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of constitutional proceedings were communicated to the Montenegrin Government (“the Government”). THE LAW The Government informed the Court that the decision of the Constitutional Court rendered in the proceedings under consideration in the present case had been served on the applicant’s counsel on 8 June 2022. They invited the Court to reject the application as out of time. The applicant disputed that fact. In a case concerning the length of constitutional proceedings, such as the present case, the four-month time-limit for lodging an application with the Court runs from the date of service of the Constitutional Court decision rendered in those proceedings (that is, when the applicant became aware that the constitutional proceedings at issue had ended). If the decision was served on the applicant’s counsel and not on the applicant, like in the present case, the time-limit runs from the date of service on the applicant’s counsel, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant only became aware of that decision later (see, for example, Pejić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 66894/01, 19 December 2002). In the present case, in view of the evidence submitted by the Government, the Court finds it established that the applicant’s counsel received the relevant decision on 8 June 2022. The applicant lodged his application with the Court on 19 October 2022. Accordingly, this application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 13 February 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Erik Wennerström   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of constitutional proceedings)   Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction 51098/22 19/10/2022 Radojka GARDAŠEVIĆ 1960 24/07/2018   07/04/2022, The decision served on the applicant on 08/06/2022   3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 15 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction